244 So. 3d 1216
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 14, 2014 an assailant wearing a cap and red bandana entered Tommie Cockerham’s home, threatened her with a shotgun, and injured her; she later testified she recognized the attacker by his eyes.
- Police briefly detained Calvin Wooten and his brother Denzel near their home; officers later found a garbage bag on Wooten property containing a red bandana, dark clothing, and .410 shells.
- A DNA profile developed from swabs of the knot on the bandana was consistent with Calvin Wooten; the shirt in the bag had a mixed DNA profile.
- Deputies recorded a conversation between the brothers in a patrol car; the recording contained statements implicating the defendant and was played to the jury; Detective Childress identified voices from his prior contact with the brothers.
- The jury convicted Calvin Wooten of attempted armed robbery and sentenced him to 15 years at hard labor; Wooten appealed arguing insufficient evidence, juror-bias errors, voice-recording admissibility, and ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress the recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wooten) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support attempted armed robbery | Evidence (victim ID, bandana, DNA, recording, physical items) allowed a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Conviction rests on weak ID, inconsistent victim statements, footprints/clothing mismatch, alternative suspect (brother), and circumstantial gaps | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reject reasonable hypotheses of innocence |
| Admissibility/weight of voice identification and recording | Lay voice ID by detective and the recording were admissible under La. C.E. art. 701; jury could listen and assess | Detective lacked foundation/expertise to distinguish voices; recording portions risked misleading/incomplete evidence | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting lay identification and recording; jury heard the tape and assessed credibility |
| Challenges for cause during voir dire (three jurors) | Jurors were rehabilitated on the record, affirmed they could follow law and presumption of innocence | Jurors expressed prejudice (victimization, belief "he must have done something", prior armed-robbery history) making them unfit | Affirmed — trial court’s discretionary denials not an abuse; voir dire rehabilitation cured perceived bias |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress the patrol-car recording | State: not raised on direct appeal in detail; factual inquiry into whether detention lacked probable cause needed | Wooten: counsel should have moved to suppress as recording was obtained while brothers were detained without probable cause (fruit of poisonous tree) | Denied on appeal — court treated claim as better suited to PCR because record lacks development on factual issue of probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (discusses reasonable-hypothesis-of-innocence rule in circumstantial-evidence cases)
- State v. Hughes, 943 So.2d 1047 (requires state to negate reasonable probability of misidentification)
- State v. Jefferson, 922 So.2d 577 (permits lay witness voice identification under La. C.E. art. 701 when based on perception and helpfulness)